Safety Pilot restrictions by the Insurance Company?

[Mark Hansen]

I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
this is necessary.

However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
as PIC.

I was told that the reason behind this is that in the event of an
accident/incident, the insurance company doesn't want anyone who
was acting as a required crew member to be a non club member.

Is this normal for an insurance restriction like this? It seems to
me that this is just making it harder for the IR pilot to practice.

Thanks,

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Mark Hansen > wrote:

> I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
> this is necessary.
>
> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
> as PIC.
>
> I was told that the reason behind this is that in the event of an
> accident/incident, the insurance company doesn't want anyone who
> was acting as a required crew member to be a non club member.
>
> Is this normal for an insurance restriction like this? It seems to
> me that this is just making it harder for the IR pilot to practice.
>
> Thanks,

Ask your chief pilot to show you the policy. That's the only way to know
for sure.

Actually, I'm sure that in the event of accident, the insurance company
more certainly DOES want the PIC to be somebody who's not covered by the
policy, because then they don't have to pay off. It's the club who doesn't
want that to happen.

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/24/07 13:28, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
>> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
>> this is necessary.
>>
>> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
>> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
>> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
>> as PIC.
>>
>> I was told that the reason behind this is that in the event of an
>> accident/incident, the insurance company doesn't want anyone who
>> was acting as a required crew member to be a non club member.
>>
>> Is this normal for an insurance restriction like this? It seems to
>> me that this is just making it harder for the IR pilot to practice.
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> Ask your chief pilot to show you the policy. That's the only way to know
> for sure.

Yes, and I'm sure each policy could be different. I'm really asking what
it typical.

>
> Actually, I'm sure that in the event of accident, the insurance company
> more certainly DOES want the PIC to be somebody who's not covered by the
> policy, because then they don't have to pay off. It's the club who doesn't
> want that to happen.

In this case, the PIC is most definitely a club member. The rub (according
to what I'm told) is that a required crew member (safety pilot) is not a
club member. The safety pilot would not be acting as PIC.

Thanks,

[tscottme]

By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft isn't
that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access to club
aircraft? I don't propose that their are unscrupulous pilots using the
safety pilot "loophole" to gain access to aircraft for nefarious reasons.
But I can understand the insurance company dictating minimum qualifications
of pilots to fly the club airplanes. If the club or insurance company
doesn't limit safety pilots to those accepted as club members the
club/insurance company doesn't really have sufficient control over the
minimum standard of pilots to access the aircraft.

If this is a real insurance or club limitation it seems similar to the "no
flight instructing in our aircraft except by approved CFIs" limitation.
Without these types of limitations the club member or pilot renting from an
FBO can take the airplane and allow non-approved pilots to use the aircraft
in a non-approved activity, with flight instructing and IFR work being
significant risks.

--

Scott

[Jose]

> By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft isn't
> that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access to club
> aircraft?

Uh... "access to club aircraft"? Like the kind of access my
non-club-member passengers have? Or my
non-club-member-but-licensed-pilot passengers have? The club member
remains PIC and remains resposible for the safety of the flight.

What kind of "access" are you talking about?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 24, 11:37 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
> this is necessary.
>
> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
> as PIC.

Insurance companies don't seem to care much about PIC. They determine
who is "pilot flying" (term used in most policies) mostly by what seat
you are in. However, the Chief Pilot is free to add any rules he
wants, he's kinda the boss. You certainly would never want to allow a
non-club member on the controls because the insurance co will get you
for that if there is an accident, regardless of PIC.

-Robert

[tscottme]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft
>> isn't that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access
>> to club aircraft?
>
> Uh... "access to club aircraft"? Like the kind of access my
> non-club-member passengers have? Or my non-club-member-but-licensed-pilot
> passengers have? The club member remains PIC and remains resposible for
> the safety of the flight.
>
> What kind of "access" are you talking about?

Without the restriction being discussed how does the club/insurance company
control which pilots are risking the airplane? If club members are required
to use safety pilots that are approved by the club, by virtue of being club
members, there is some minimum of safety pilot qualification assured.
Without the rule a club member can designate any warm body sitting in the
right seat as safety pilot.

The rule may not prevent unauthorized use any more than a "no flight
instructing in aircraft rented by ABC Aviation without prior approval" but
the rule seems just as reasonable. The rule is a bright line which informs
club members specifically about an acitivity of increased risk. While
pilots and insurance companies have been arguing for years about "who's in
control" and PIC, etc. The rule seems to head off the ambiguity by
requiring both pilots to be approved by virtue of membership.

--

Scott

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:13:09 -0600, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft isn't
>that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access to club
>aircraft? I don't propose that their are unscrupulous pilots using the
>safety pilot "loophole" to gain access to aircraft for nefarious reasons.

The safety pilot is chosen by the PIC, no?

As I've safetied for my friends, I've NEVER actually flown the plane.
<G> My job is simply to look for other VFR traffic, and ensure we
stay separated from traffic called out to us by ATC, while the other
pilot was under the hood and flying the instruments.

What "nefarious reasons" could a safety pilot have who's been chosen
by the PIC? Many of our local safety pilots are FBO line people
working up advanced ratings and looking to log free time.

[Jose]

> Without the restriction being discussed how does the club/insurance company
> control which pilots are risking the airplane?

"Risking" the airplane? What are you talking about? The PIC "risks"
the airplane every time he flies it. He "risks" the airplane even more
if he takes a passenger. Perhaps passengers should be required to be
club members.

> Without the rule a club member can designate any warm body sitting in the
> right seat as safety pilot.

No, the safety pilot has to meet certain FAA standards. The PIC "risks"
the airplane every time he puts on a hood. But it is the PIC that is
risking the airplane.

> The rule seems to head off the ambiguity by
> requiring both pilots to be approved by virtue of membership.

Ambiguity can also be headed off by requiring all occupants to be club
members.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/24/07 18:13, tscottme wrote:
> By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft isn't
> that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access to club
> aircraft? I don't propose that their are unscrupulous pilots using the
> safety pilot "loophole" to gain access to aircraft for nefarious reasons.
> But I can understand the insurance company dictating minimum qualifications
> of pilots to fly the club airplanes. If the club or insurance company
> doesn't limit safety pilots to those accepted as club members the
> club/insurance company doesn't really have sufficient control over the
> minimum standard of pilots to access the aircraft.
>
> If this is a real insurance or club limitation it seems similar to the "no
> flight instructing in our aircraft except by approved CFIs" limitation.
> Without these types of limitations the club member or pilot renting from an
> FBO can take the airplane and allow non-approved pilots to use the aircraft
> in a non-approved activity, with flight instructing and IFR work being
> significant risks.
>

Again ... the safety pilot is not acting as pilot in command. He is acting
as safety pilot only. He is little more than a passenger.

Incidentally, the club requires that the pilot acting as PIC be a club
member, so that rules out the ability for the safety pilot to act as
PIC (even if they allowed non-club members to be safety pilot).

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/24/07 23:46, tscottme wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> By allowing non-club members to act as safety pilot in club aircraft
>>> isn't that a big loophole to allow pilots of unknown qualification access
>>> to club aircraft?
>>
>> Uh... "access to club aircraft"? Like the kind of access my
>> non-club-member passengers have? Or my non-club-member-but-licensed-pilot
>> passengers have? The club member remains PIC and remains resposible for
>> the safety of the flight.
>>
>> What kind of "access" are you talking about?
>
> Without the restriction being discussed how does the club/insurance company
> control which pilots are risking the airplane? If club members are required
> to use safety pilots that are approved by the club, by virtue of being club
> members, there is some minimum of safety pilot qualification assured.
> Without the rule a club member can designate any warm body sitting in the
> right seat as safety pilot.

First, the safety pilot must meet the FAA requirements of a safety pilot
or he's not a safety pilot - he's just a passenger.

Second, the club member PIC is fully responsible for the flight. What is
being risked by a qualified pilot acting as safety pilot?

>
> The rule may not prevent unauthorized use any more than a "no flight
> instructing in aircraft rented by ABC Aviation without prior approval" but
> the rule seems just as reasonable. The rule is a bright line which informs
> club members specifically about an acitivity of increased risk. While
> pilots and insurance companies have been arguing for years about "who's in
> control" and PIC, etc. The rule seems to head off the ambiguity by
> requiring both pilots to be approved by virtue of membership.
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/24/07 20:15, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:37 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
>> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
>> this is necessary.
>>
>> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
>> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
>> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
>> as PIC.
>
> Insurance companies don't seem to care much about PIC. They determine
> who is "pilot flying" (term used in most policies) mostly by what seat
> you are in. However, the Chief Pilot is free to add any rules he
> wants, he's kinda the boss. You certainly would never want to allow a
> non-club member on the controls because the insurance co will get you
> for that if there is an accident, regardless of PIC.
>
> -Robert
>

Fair enough, Robert. However, what has that got to do with my specific
case? As I've said, the club member is acting as PIC. The safety pilot
is *not* flying the airplane.

Also, the Chief Pilot claims this restriction comes from the insurance
company, so (unless he's lying) this isn't a case of the Chief Pilot
making additional restrictions.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Alan Gerber]

Mark Hansen > wrote:
> Again ... the safety pilot is not acting as pilot in command. He is acting
> as safety pilot only. He is little more than a passenger.

That's one way to look at it. Another perspective is that he's a required
crew member.

It's not entirely unreasonable for the insurance company (or the club) to
mandate that all required crew are club members.

> Incidentally, the club requires that the pilot acting as PIC be a club
> member, so that rules out the ability for the safety pilot to act as
> PIC (even if they allowed non-club members to be safety pilot).

From an insurance and a risk management perspective, that sounds to me
like splitting hairs. It doesn't particularly make the flight safer for
the pilot under the hood to always be PIC, does it?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Chris]

whether it is the insurance company or the club that requires it, it sees to
make sense.


"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
> this is necessary.
>
> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
> as PIC.
>
> I was told that the reason behind this is that in the event of an
> accident/incident, the insurance company doesn't want anyone who
> was acting as a required crew member to be a non club member.
>
> Is this normal for an insurance restriction like this? It seems to
> me that this is just making it harder for the IR pilot to practice.
>
> Thanks,

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 25, 11:53 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 02/24/07 20:15, Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 11:37 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> >> I belong to a flying club. Of the many club rules, one is that the
> >> pilot acting as PIC must be a club member. I can certainly see where
> >> this is necessary.
>
> >> However, the Chief Pilot for the club claims that the insurance
> >> company is requiring that a safety pilot for IFR practice must also
> >> be a club member, even when the safety pilot will *not* be acting
> >> as PIC.
>
> > Insurance companies don't seem to care much about PIC. They determine
> > who is "pilot flying" (term used in most policies) mostly by what seat
> > you are in. However, the Chief Pilot is free to add any rules he
> > wants, he's kinda the boss. You certainly would never want to allow a
> > non-club member on the controls because the insurance co will get you
> > for that if there is an accident, regardless of PIC.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Fair enough, Robert. However, what has that got to do with my specific
> case? As I've said, the club member is acting as PIC. The safety pilot
> is *not* flying the airplane.
>
> Also, the Chief Pilot claims this restriction comes from the insurance
> company, so (unless he's lying) this isn't a case of the Chief Pilot
> making additional restrictions.

I think my point is that it doesn't make much difference if its an
insurance rule or the belief of the chief pilot. Either case is just
as binding. I know that some FBOs don't allow non-members to be safety
pilots because they are concerned that the safety pilot may end up
doing some flying. At least that is what they say, who knows. Maybe
they want the dues from the other guy. In fact, FBOs always seem
uncomfortable when a pilot, non-member is in their planes.

-Robert